International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 1-19, March 2016
Botswana Early Childhood Educators‟
Perceptions on Factors associated with the
Inclusion of Children with Disabilities
Mrs. Simmi Chhabra
M.Sc (Child Development)
Tonota College of Education,
Tonota, Botswana
Prof. Kabita Bose
PhD (Education)
Department of Primary Education,
Faculty of Education,
University of Botswana,
Gaborone, Botswana
Prof. Neerja Chadha
PhD in Child Development
School of Continuing Education,
Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU),
New Delhi, India
Abstract. The study examines the perception of Early Childhood
Educators‟ (ECEds) on factors associated with the inclusion of children
with disabilities in Early Childhood Education (ECE) settings in
Botswana. ECEds (128) completed a Support Scale for Preschool
Inclusion (SSPI) to air their views regarding the necessary/available
factors for the inclusion of Children With Disabilities (CWD) in ECE
settings. Findings of the study revealed that factors like principal
support, family involvement, appropriate materials, peer acceptance of
CWD, knowledge and skills about curriculum adaptation/
implementation, promoting positive interaction among children,
positive attitudes of school personnel for inclusion, and a few others
were considered necessary by ECDs; believed that most of them were
not available in ECE settings; and in-service training, extra time for
collaboration and reduced class size were least available. The findings
suggested professional development of ECEds along with additional in
service training necessary for successful inclusion of young CWD in
ECE settings of Botswana.
Keywords: Inclusion, Early Childhood Education, Children with
disabilities, Inclusive Education, Botswana
©2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
2
Introduction
In the last two or three decades, inclusion of Children With Disabilities
(CWD) has become a universal social approach that encourages all to build
societies that grow and rejoice in everyone‟s successes (Booth, Ainscow &
Kingston, 2006). This rationale is based on the disability rights movement
(Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse & Wesley, 1998) which started in mid-20th century
and supported the ethical and philosophical rights of various people with
different abilities to participate in the variety of day-to-day tasks. This
movement included all children with right to participate in educational settings,
together with children without disabilities, which was called as
mainstreaming/integration. The terms integration and mainstreaming are identical,
indicating to the placement of a CWD into an ordinary school environment
(Yuen & Westwood, 2001). The CWD are given some additional support to
participate in the classroom activities, but the purpose is to create the situation
where children with disabilities have to adjust according to the program
(Chhabra, Srivastava & Srivastav, 2010).
In the beginning of 1990, the notion of inclusion gained popularity and
referred to the rights of CWD who could take part in mainstream educational
settings with other children (Guralnick, 2001; Odom & Diamond, 1998). The
Salamanca Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994) adopted at the United
Nations Conference on special education emphasizes the urgency of the new
emerging trend of inclusive schooling which has brought challenges for
education system to adapt itself to the needs of children rather than expecting
them to make compromises. Inclusion is about fitting programs to accommodate
the individual needs of all children. It suggests that curriculum, instructional
practice and resources must be accustomed fairly so that all children, regardless
of capability, can successfully be involved in the regular learning programs
(Mittler, 1995).
The expanding paradigm of inclusion refers to the community, where the
entire population of children can have the right to take part in a mainstream
educational setting, and be respected as a part of that program as well
(Carrington, 2007). The overall goal of inclusion is to prepare CWD for life
outside of the school setting (NAEYC/DEC, 1993). Likewise, for preschool age
children, inclusive practices should assist the prolific involvement in the
community (Odom, 2000). CWD have the right to be a part of mainstream
education from the early childhood level and it is the responsibility of the
regular schools and Early Childhood Educators (ECEds) to provide this
education. Current research supports inclusion of children with various
disabilities in the mainstream settings (Odom, Buysee, & Soukakou, 2011).
Young CWD exhibited better social skills and academic success when they are
participating in inclusive early childhood setting (Koegal, Fredeen, Lang &
Koegal, 2011). On the other hand, children without disabilities in ECE settings
become more responsive to the needs of others, show more acceptances of
differences, may develop friendship with and feel less discomfort around people
with disabilities (Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992; Odom, Zercher, Li,
Marquart, & Sandal, 2006). In addition, it appears that the involvement of
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
3
children without disabilities in inclusive settings may positively affect their
knowledge and attitudes about disabilities (Diamond & Huang, 2005).
Inclusion of CWD in Botswana
According to Abosi (2000), in Botswana, the education of CWD began
about 40 years ago and was started by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO).
In this country, the inclusion of CWD in mainstream education was believed to
include all children irrespective of their capability; to provide them with the
same right to be educated; and to be a part of the mainstream educational
setting. This commitment of enhancing access and equal right for education has
been highlighted in the current policy on inclusive education (Mukhopadhyay,
2014). In position with the global trend of inclusion, an all-encompassing policy
document on inclusion of CWD in the education settings has been developed in
2011. The Inclusive Education policy has five goals will be achieved through ten
statements of commitment. These goals emphasised the childrens‟ completion of
basic education, teachers‟ possession of necessary skills, and provision of
resources, informal educational settings, and supportive and harmonious
environment in various categories of schools (Republic of Botswana, 2011;
Mukhopadhyay, 2013). In Inclusive Education policy, one of the commitment
statements specifically caters to children with disabilities (Republic of Botswana,
2011).
Children with special needs will be encouraged and supported to attend
school and benefit from their attendance. (p. 12)
This commitment encourages the school staff to maintain a good
inclusive environment for all children and to liaise with children‟s parents
regularly (Republic of Botswana, 2011). It is anticipated that after the
implementation of this policy, the number of children with different abilities in a
classroom will continually increase and therefore, it is imperative to make sure
that all educators are prepared with necessary information and services to cater
for the developmental and educational requirements of CWD.
Teachers’ Views on Factors Associated with Inclusion in Early
Childhood Education (ECE) Settings
Previous research studies conducted in other countries have examined
factors of inclusion (e.g. teachers‟ knowledge, administrative support, resources,
and materials) for the successful inclusion of CWD in Early Childhood
Education (ECE) setting. Many researchers have indicated that teachers lack
awareness, training, expertise, readiness, capabilities and self-assurance that are
required to provide beneficial and suitable instruction to meet the needs of all
children in the ECE settings (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Paterson, 2007; Sadler,
2005).
In Bruns‟ and Mogharreben‟s (2008) study, teachers in Head Start
settings reported that they possessed general skills to encourage the learning of
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
4
all children but were less confident about their skills to carry out specialised
practices associated with special education like implementing Individual
Educational Plan (IEP) goals and objectives or supporting children to use
alternative forms of communication. Moreover, teacher training is constantly
reported by many researchers as one of the most important factors in meeting
the individual requirements of all children in an inclusive programme
(Mulvihill, Shear, & Vanhorn 2002). Furthermore, many researchers have
discovered other factors that were observed by educator as necessary factors for
the effective inclusion of young children with disabilities in ECE settings.
Results suggested that in-service training, availability of resources (Avramidis,
Bayliss, & Burden, 2000), adequate staffing (Kucuker, Acarlar, & Kapci, 2006;
McConkey & Bhlirgri, 2003), administrative or principal support (Kucker
Acarlar, & Kapci, 2006; Proctor & Nieymar, 2001) and support from
professionals (Hammond & Ingalls, 2003) are vital in the implementation of
effective inclusion of children with disabilities in the inclusive classroom.
Hughes and Valle-Riestra (2007) in their study reported about the
desirable (necessary) and feasible (available) factors as perceived by the
kindergarten teachers. They reported that many kindergarten educators were
not prepared with the expertise and professional skills for the inclusion of CWD
in educational settings in inclusive classrooms. They expressed that the necessity
for implementing the instructional practice was much more than the available
factors for inclusion in the classroom.
Teachers’ Views on Inclusion of CWD in ECE Settings of Botswana
In Botswana, research on inclusion of CWD in preschool is scarce.
Previous researches in Botswana indicate that educators do not have positive
attitudes towards inclusion and are concerned about inadequate equipment,
large class size, inadequate training, and lack of resources in the implementation
of successful inclusion in school. They also pointed out that educators play a
very important role in the inclusion of CWD. However, most of these researches
focussed on primary & secondary teachers‟ perceptions and did not include the
views of early childhood educators‟ for the inclusion of young CWD in early
childhood schools (Brandon 2006; Mangope, Kuyini, & Major, 2012;
Mukhopadhyay, 2013).
The aim of this research is to find the opinions of Early Childhood
Educators (ECEds) regarding the factors that are necessary and available for the
implementation of inclusion in the ECE settings of Botswana in order to draw
meaningful implications for future practices in ECE settings that are likely to
promote successful inclusion of preschool CWD at the field level. The
information provided by these ECEds can enlighten the professionals about the
factors that are necessary and available for the inclusion of CWD. The findings
may assist in determining the types of professional opportunities ECEds may be
provided with to benefit from, and to improve the learning experiences of CWD
in ECE settings. The authors used the following two research objectives to guide
the focus of the study:
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
5
1) To examine the early childhood educators‟ perception of the necessary
factors for the successful inclusion of CWD
2) To investigate the early childhood educators‟ perception of the factors
that are available for the successful inclusion of CWD.
Method
Research Design
In this study, the positivist research paradigm was utilised. The research
design employed for this study was quantitative, using survey methodology to
systematically collect data from a sample of Early Childhood Educators (ECEds).
The survey methodology allows the researcher to use questionnaire as the main
method of attaining information from a particular sample so that inferences can
be made about characteristics or perceptions of the actual population (Dillman,
2000). The questionnaires are efficient to distribute when sampling multiple sites
in multiple states. This study was conducted in the Republic of Botswana at two
selected settings, namely, Gaborone and Francistown area, the largest cities of
Botswana, located in the southern and Northern part of the country. The
Gaborone region was selected as this is the capital of Botswana and is located at
southeast district whereas Francistown is the second largest city and is often
described as the “Capital of North”. The other reason for selecting these two
regions is that they have highest concentration of varied types of ECE settings
(Gaborone and Francistown Day Care Directory, 2011)
Participants
The purposive sampling was utilized to select the ECEds from the
inclusive ECE settings in the two regions (Gaborone and Francistown). There
were 133 ECE settings in that region and from that population, 34 inclusive ECE
settings existed and were all selected (27 Gaborone and 7 Francistown). One
hundred twenty eight (128) early childhood educators participated in the survey.
Instrument
A questionnaire was used to gather data from participants. The first
section of the questionnaire was aimed to gather general, educational and
professional experience of the participants. This section had included the
gender, age, role in the class, educational qualifications, teaching experience,
training focusing on CWD, family member with a disability, close friend with a
disability, child with a disability in class and total number of children in the
class. The second section of the questionnaire, Support Scale for Pre-school
Inclusion (SSPI) developed by Küçüker, Sevgi; Acarlar, Funda; Kapci, Emine
(2006), contained 34 items and is designed to assess the educators‟ views of
factors which are essential and accessible for inclusion of CWD. The educators
were supposed to provide their views in each item for two dimensions, i.e,
necessary and available, by rating on a four-point Likert-Scale, from 1-4, where 1
stands for Not at all and 4 stands for To a great extent. The participants required
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
6
to indicate the necessity for successful inclusion followed by availably of items.
The reliability of Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for necessary and available
dimension was very high (.96 and .97 respectively).
Data Analysis
The response of the participants from the questionnaire was first coded
and then analysed quantitatively by using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences). Descriptive analysis and inferential statistical techniques were used to
analyse the response from the questionnaires. The analysis included Mean Score,
Total Mean Score T-Test and One-Way (ANOVA) test of both the dimensions.
Results
One hundred twenty eight (128) early childhood educators‟ (ECEds)
completed questionnaires for the study. The majority (93.8%) of the early
childhood educators‟ was female and 6.2% was male. Teachers‟ age ranged from
19 years to 50 years. There were 33 teachers (25.8%) in the 19-29 years. The 30-39
years and 40-49 years age groups together consisted of 82 teachers, representing
64.1% of the teachers who responded. The smallest group was the 41-50 years
age group that consisted of thirteen teachers, representing 10.1% of teachers who
responded. The majority, 88 participants (68.75%) held teacher position whereas
40 respondents (31.25%) were teacher assistant. Approximately 30.5% of the
ECEds had certificate in ECE whereas 35.9% reported having Diploma in
Primary Education followed by 17.23% having Bachelor degree. The educators
had teaching experience ranging from 2 months to 30 years suggesting that
almost half of the respondents (47.7%) had upto 5 years of teaching experience
followed by 33 respondents who had teaching experience of 6-10 years
representing 25.78% of the sample. The majority, 106 respondents (82.8%) had no
training while only 22 respondents (17.2%) had some prior training focussing on
the education of children with disabilities. The majority, 67.2% respondents had
no family member with a disability followed by 32.8% of respondents who had
family member with a disability. Almost half of the respondents, 47.7% had
either one or two CWD along with other children in the classroom.
Approximately half of the respondents (47.7%) indicated total numbers of
children including CWD were 21-25, and one fourth of participants (25.0%)
reported that they had 26-32 total numbers of children in their classroom (Table
1).
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
7
Table 1
Demographic Information of Early Childhood Educators (ECEds)
Demographic Characteristics
Gender
Frequency
Male
Female
Percentage
8(6.3)
120(93.8)
Age
19-29
30-39
40-49
Above 50
33(25.8)
42(32.8)
40(31.3)
13(10.2)
Role
Teacher
Teacher Assistant
88(68.8)
46(31.3)
Educational Qualifications
Bachelor
Diploma
Certificate
BGCSE
CJSS
22(17.2)
46(35.9)
39(30.5)
12(9.4)
9(7.0)
Number of years of Teaching
Experience
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
Above 21
61(47.7)
33(25.8)
15(11.7)
14(10.9)
5(3.9)
Training focussing on the education of Yes
CWD
No
22(17.2)
106(82.8)
Family member with a disability
Yes
No
42(32.8)
86(67.2)
Close friend with a disability
Yes
No
35(29.3)
85(70.8)
Child with a disability in a class
Yes
No
61(47.7)
67(52.3)
Number of children in a class
6-10
11.15
16-20
21-25
26-30
1(8.0)
3(2.3)
31(24.2)
61(47.7)
32(25.0)
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages
The findings from the analysis of the survey data provide evidence of the
early childhood educators‟ perceptions of the necessary and available inclusion
factors. Scores generated from the necessary factors and available factors were
used as the dependent variables whereas age, role, educational qualifications,
teaching experience, family member with a disability, close friend with a
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
8
disability and child with a disability were used as independent variables. Mean,
Standard deviation, t-test and one way of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
utilised to find out the difference between variables. Post hoc was also done to
see the difference in the categories of the significant variables.
Early Childhood Educators Perceived Necessary Factors
In order to measure the necessary factors for the inclusion of CWD, the
Participants (ECEds) rated how necessary the 34 inclusion items/factors were
for the involvement of CWD in their early childhood classrooms. The results of
the study revealed that all items/factors in necessary dimension had total mean
score of above 3, suggesting that ECEds perceived all items to be somewhat
necessary for the inclusion of CWD in ECE settings.
The participants view the principal‟s support (3.78), family support
(3.68), appropriate material (3.68), appropriate materials for CWD (3.68), and
peer social acceptance of CWD (3.64%) as the most necessary factors for the
inclusion of children with disabilities in their classrooms. They all believe that
principal, family support and peer social acceptance is necessary for the
inclusion in school. The least necessary factors were opportunities to attend
meetings (3.39), written information on needed areas of inclusion (3.39),
followed by technological equipment to support education of CWD (3.40). Table
2 displays the most and least necessary factors as perceived by ECEds.
Table 2
Most and Least Necessary Factors for Early Childhood Educators
Most Necessary factors
Mean(SD)
Least Necessary Factors
Support From School Principals‟
3.78(0.55)
Opportunities to attend meetings,
for Children with Disabilities
conferences etc.
(CWD)
Family Involvement of CWD
3.68(0.70)
Written Information on needed
areas
Appropriate materials for CWD
3.68(0.70)
Technological equipment to
support education of CWD
Peer Social Acceptance of CWD
3.64(0.72)
Volunteers in Classroom
Knowledge and Skill about
3.63(0.69)
Extra time for Collaboration with
Curriculum adaptation &
professionals/families/personnel
Implementation
Knowledge and Skill about
3.60(0.72)
Regular meetings with families &
promoting positive interaction
specialist about CWD
among all children
Positive attitude of school
3.59(0.66)
Appreciation of other in
personnel towards inclusion
workplace
Mean(SD)
3.39(0.95)
3.39(0.88)
3.40(0.87)
3.41(0.85)
3.42(0.87)
3.43(0.94)
3.43(0.85)
One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test was used to examine
the significance of the perception of early childhood educators on the „needs‟ or
„necessary‟ dimension for the inclusion of children with disabilities in ECE
settings. One Way ANOVA and t test showed that there are statistically
significant differences in the necessary dimension for the participants (ECEds)
characterised by their role in the class, educational qualifications, teaching
experience, training focusing on CWD, having a close friend with a disability and
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
9
having a child with a disability in the classroom. The non-significant factors were
respondent‟s gender, age and total number of children in the class (Table 3).
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviation, t/F-test of
Demographic variables
Variables
Gender
Male
Female
Age
19-29
30-39
40-49
Above 50
Role
Teacher
Teacher Assista
Educational
Qualifications
Bachelor
Diploma
Certificate
BGCSE
CJSS
Teaching Experience
on this job
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
Above 21
Training focussing on
the education of CWD Yes
No
Family member with
a disability
Yes
No
Close friend with a
disability
Yes
No
Child with a
disability in a class
Yes
No
Number of children
in a class
6-10
11.15
16-20
21-25
26-30
* p<.05 **p<.01
Necessary Factors across Early Childhood Educators
N
Mean
SD
t/F
3.65
3.53
.409
.533
t=.630
.530
33(25.8)
42(32.8)
40(31.3)
13(10.2)
3.47
3.46
3.59
3.74
.588
.570
.465
.321
F= 1.276
.286
88(68.8)
46(31.3)
3.63
3.32
.434
.644
t = 9.874
002**
22(17.2)
46(35.9)
39(30.5)
12(9.4)
9(7.0)
3.66
3.64
3.49
3.37
3.06
.483
.409
.563
.656
.577
F =3.161
.016*
61(47.7)
33(25.8)
15(11.7)
14(10.9)
5(3.9)
3.37
3.59
3.79
3.75
3.71
.60
.491
.271
.241
.410
F =3.405
011*
22(17.2)
106(82.8)
3.82
3.47
.286
.547
t =2.91
.004*
42(32.8)
86(67.2)
3.56
3.52
.530
.528
t = .421
.074
35(27.3)
93(72.7)
3.68
3.48
.408
.556
t = 1.97
.051
61(47.7)
67(52.3)
3.67
3.41
.422
.582
t = 2.82
.005**
1(8.0)
3(2.3)
31(24.2)
61(47.7)
32(25.0)
3.71
3.69
3.58
3.50
3.50
F= .491
.742
.136
.494
.481
.655
8(6.3)
120(93.7)
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages
The data presented in Table 3 shows a significant variance of educators‟
views that held a position of teacher and teacher assistant (p< 0.05) on total mean
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Sig (p)
10
scores of all of the items in the necessary dimensions. The participants who held
a position of teacher had slightly higher mean score (n = 88, M= 3.63) than
participants with a role of teacher assistant (n = 40, M = 3.32). Similarly there
was a significant influence of education of participants on total mean scores of
all of the items in the necessary dimension [F (1, 126) = 3.161, p < .01]. The post hoc
test (Table 4) showed that the participants with a junior school certificate had a
significantly lower mean score (n=9, M= 3.06) than participants with a bachelors‟
degree (Mean difference =.601, p = .028) and those with diploma (Mean
difference = .577, p = .019). Likewise, the teaching experience of participants [F (5,
122) = 3.405, p < .05] also had an effect on the total mean scores of items in the
necessary dimensions. Post hoc comparison indicates that participants with 0–5
years of teaching experience differ significantly at p < .05 with participants of 11
-15 years of teaching experience (Mean difference = -.419, p =.038). However, it
should be added that all five groups of educators with different years of
teaching experience observed the factors as quite necessary for inclusion of
CWD (Table 4).
Table 4
Post hoc comparison of Necessary score on the basis of highest degree, teaching experience in
teaching CWD
Variable
Highest Degree
Mean difference
CJSS
Number of Years
of Teaching
0–5
Experience
Bachelor
Diploma
Certificate
BGCSE
-.60086
-.57744 .42658
-.30972
6 – 10
11- 15 years
16 -20
Above 21years
-.21805
-.41963
-.37872
-.33430
Sig (p)
.
.028.
.019*
.169.
.642
.
278
038*
.093
.618
*Indicates a significance at the p<.05
There was significant difference in the necessary dimensions for the
participants who had Training focussing on the education of CWD [t (126) = 2.91,
p < 0.5] and child with a disability in the class [t (126) = 2.82, p < .05). However
there was no significant difference in the total mean scores of the participants‟
age [F (3, 124) = 1.276, p = 0.286), gender [F (1, 126) = 0.396, p = 0.530), family member
with a disability [F (1, 126) = 0.421, p = 0.674) and close friend with a disability [F (1,
126) = 1.97, p = .051). The results are depicted in Table 3. This means that
participants with role as a teacher and with a qualification of diploma and
training focussed on education of CWD perceived the factors more necessary as
compared to the participants who are teacher assistant who had only school
level of education and no training on the education of CWD. This result shows
that for the implementation of inclusion of CWD in ECE settings in Botswana,
educators have to be qualified, knowledgeable, experienced and trained to deal
specifically with the CWD in the ECE settings. Overall, the ECEds perceived
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
11
that all of the inclusion factors were highly necessary for effective inclusion of
CWD in ECE settings.
Early Childhood Educators Perceived Available factors
The data presented in Table 5 shows participants‟ views about the
available factors needed for inclusion of CWD on the SSPI. The early childhood
educators rated how available/accessible each of the 34 inclusion factors. It can
be observed from the Table 5 that most available items‟ (34 items) mean scores
are below 3 indicating that educators perceived availability level of support was
less for the inclusion of CWD in ECE settings.
The most available support from the educators‟ point of view are as
principals‟ support (3.14) followed by the positive attitudes of school personnel
towards inclusion and peer social acceptance of CWD (2.98), whereas the reduced
class size (2.19), extra time for collaboration with professionals (2.26) and the
written information on the needed area of inclusion (2.26) were the least available
support factors for inclusion of CWD in the ECE settings (Table 5). The results of
the study shows that the total mean score of all the items was 2.65 for the available
support dimensions, which ranges between very little available and somewhat
available of the inclusion factor.
Table 5
Most and Least Available Factors for Early Childhood Educators
Most Available factors
Mean(SD)
Least available Factors
Mean(SD)
Support From School Principals‟
3.14(0.82)
Reduced class size
2.19(1.22)
for Children with Disabilities (CWD)
Positive attitude of school personnel
2.98(0.88)
Extra time for Collaboration with
2.26(0.99)
towards inclusion
professionals/families/personnel
Peer Social Acceptance of CWD
2.98(0.96)
Written information on needed areas2.26(1.10)
Family Involvement of CWD
2.90(0.97)
In-service training in needed areas 2.30(1.17)
inclusion
Positive attitudes of families of Childre 2.85(0.90)
Volunteers in Classroom
2.34(1.13)
without disabilities
Knowledge and Skill about
2.85(0.92)
Training for school Personnel
2.36(1.14)
communicating with families
fostering positive attitudes
Knowledge and skills about
2.84(0.93)
Opportunities to attend meetings2.41(1.12)
Promoting positive interaction among
conference etc.
all children
One way ANOVA and T-tests (Table 6) displayed no statistically
significant variances in the available dimension for most of the participant
characteristics including gender, age, teacher role, level of education, teaching
practice, training focusing on education of CWD, family member with a
disability, close friend with a disability, child with a disability in the class and
number of children in class. It shows that the views of all early childhood
educators were more or less same when it comes to availability of factors for the
inclusion. Overall, the ECEds perceived that most of the inclusion factors were
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
12
somewhat available or available very little with mean score over 2.19 for each
survey item.
Table 6
Means, Standard Deviation, t or F-test of Available Factors across Early Childhood Educators
Demographic variables
N
SD
t/F
Sig (p)
2.54
2.61
.714
.724
t = .-.275
.784
33(25.8)
42(32.8)
40(31.3)
13(10.2)
2.64
2.61
2.50
2.85
. .850
.709
.710
.430
F= .785
.505
Teacher
88(68.8)
Teacher Assista 46(31.3)
2.62
2.59
.678
.825
t = .261
794
Bachelor
Diploma
Certificate
BGCSE
CJSS
22(17.2)
46(35.9)
39(30.5)
12(9.4)
9(7.0)
2.43
2.58
2.68
2.54
2.93
.663
.681
.772
.817
.707
F =.920
.655
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
Above 21
61(47.7)
33(25.8)
15(11.7)
14(10.9)
5(3.9)
2.66
2.75
2.46
2.45
1.86
.774
.670
.705
.530
.460
F = 1.67
146
22(17.2)
106(82.8)
2.81
2.57
.618
.736
t = 1.46
.146
42(32.8)
86(67.2)
2.73
2.55
.741
.707
t = 1.38
.170
35(27.3)
93(72.7)
2.68
2.58
.729
.720
t = .751
.478
61(47.7)
67(52.3)
2.61
2.61
.734
.715
t = .027
.979
1(8.0)
3(2.3)
31(24.2)
61(47.7)
32(25.0)
3.71
2.63
2.55
2.66
2.53
F= .790
.534
Variables
Gender
Male
Female
8(6.3)
120(93.7)
Mean
Age
19-29
30-39
40-49
Above 50
Role
Educational
Qualifications
Teaching Experience
on this job
Training focussing on
the education of CWD Yes
No
Family member with
a disability
Yes
No
Close friend with a
disability
Yes
No
Child with a
disability in a class
Yes
No
Number of children
in a class
6-10
11.15
16-20
21-25
26-30
* p<.05
Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
1.02
.810
.671
.708
13
In this study, the comparisons of the necessary factor and available
factors for the mean score of all the items were conducted to identify the
relationship between the participants‟ perceived necessary factors and their
perceptions of the degree to which those factors were available to them in their
classroom settings. The greatest difference between the total mean score of
necessary and available dimensions was 1.26 (reduced class size) and 1.25 (inservice training in the needed areas of inclusion) indicating a higher overall level
of perceived inclusion necessity than available support. The smallest difference
was 0.61 (positive attitude of school personal towards inclusion) and 0.64
(support from school principal) demonstrating that participants perceived this
as the necessary factor as well as available support factor for the inclusion of
CWD. The total mean score of all factors/items in the necessary dimension
(3.53), and the total mean score of all of the items in the available dimension
(2.61). Thus the difference was 0.92, which signifies that the participants
observed the less availability of the inclusion factors as compared to necessary
ones for involvement of CWDs in classrooms.
Discussion
The research study examines the views of ECEds concerning the factors
that are necessary and available for the effective inclusion of CWD in the ECE
settings in Botswana. The implication from the analysis of survey data from a
sample of 128 ECEds related to the necessary and available factors are presented.
The two main findings emerge from the analysis: (1) the ECEds identified a large
number of necessary factors for successful inclusion of CWD and (2) they
perceived that availability of inclusion factors was less as compared to necessary
inclusion factors.
As per the findings of this study, it is urgent to give more attention to the
ECE settings and the inclusion of CWD. The inclusion of young CWD in ECE
settings is a relatively new idea to principal, parents and ECDs in Botswana;
although education policy of Botswana (Republic of Botswana, 1994; 2001)
suggested that as far as possible CWD must be included in the mainstream ECE
settings along with the peers without disabilities. The findings from the present
study suggests that principals‟ support, family support and appropriate material
needed for teaching in class are the most necessary factors for the inclusion of
CWD in inclusive class as perceived by ECEd. The finding was consistent with
Villa and Thousand (2003) and Leatherman (2007) where principal support was
observed as important for the inclusion of CWD in school. Researchers reported
a significant role of parents/families involvement as a key contributing factor
that encourages positive results in teaching young CWD in inclusive ECE
program (Anderson & Mike, 2007; Bronfrenbrenner, 1979: Levy, Kim & Olive,
2006).
In this study, significant differences were found about the perceptions of
necessary factors among educators who had position of teacher than those with
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
14
a position of teacher assistant. Similarly significant differences were also found
between educators who had diploma qualification than those with school
qualifications and with educators who had teaching experience of 11-15 years
than those with less teaching experience. These educators must have attended
some course on education of CWD and maybe about inclusive practices at their
diploma level than those with school qualifications. The findings of this
research resonate well with the results of Kucker, Acarlar, and Kapci (2006)
study. The ECEds perceived high level of necessary inclusion factors were
corroborated in the early childhood inclusion research. Similar findings were
observed in the studies by Huges & Viella-Riestra (2007) and Vaughan, Reiss,
Rothlein and Hughes (1999) where kindergarten teachers observed the
instructional practice as being highly necessary (mean score of 4.96 out of 5) to
implement in the inclusive early childhood classroom. Mulvihill, Shearer and
Horn (2002) also found the same results where they discover that participants‟
perceptions of inclusion related requirements ranked several items like
additional staff, special equipment, more training as highly necessary for the
successful inclusion of CWD in child care programs.
The study revealed that the most available factors that are perceived by
ECEds are support from principal, positive attitudes of school personnel, peer
social acceptance and family involvement of CWD. Many researchers (Dagnew,
2013; Ross-hill, 2009; Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998) in their study reported
that teachers consider the support of the principal and other school leaders
critical for the implementation of inclusion in the schools. Similar finding was
evident in the present study as the ECEds believe that principal support is
available to them for meeting the educational and social needs of all children in
the school.
The ECEds in present study identified peer social acceptance of CWD as
one of the available factor for the inclusion of young CWD in their inclusive
school. The inclusion literature also supports the importance of a positive social
climate as part of a constructive classroom environment that supports successful
inclusion. David and Kuyinin (2012) in their study mentioned that peer social
acceptance of the CWD in the inclusive school is one of the important factor to
nurture self-esteem and improved e for CWD. The other available factor
recognized by the ECEds was the family involvement of CWD. Many studies
have established that family involvement assist children‟s success in inclusive
educational settings and improves developmental outcomes for children with
and without disabilities (Levy, Kim, & Olive, 2006; Salend, 2006). The least
available factors for inclusion of CWD as identified by ECEds were reduced
class size, extra collaboration with professional and in-service training in the
desired areas of inclusion. Mukhopadhyay (2013) in his study found that
primary teachers in Botswana are concerned about the pragmatic factors such as
large class size, insufficient training and lack of support that are considered to
pose major obstacles to partnership and execution of inclusion at primary
schools. Similar trend was observed in Early Childhood education (ECE) centres
in the present study. Many researchers (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998;
Korkmaz, 2011) also established that educators should be provided
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
15
opportunities to collaborate with personnel as it may compensate their personal
insecurities for the successful implementation of inclusion
The study revealed that views of all ECEds were same for the availability
of inclusion factors as no statistically significant difference was found in most of
the participants‟ responses. The findings of study also suggest the nonavailability of inclusion factors for the effective results of including CWD in the
inclusive educational settings as perceived by the ECEds. These findings are
consistent with the author of Support Scale for Preschool Inclusion (SSPI)
measure (Kucker, Acarlar & Kapei, 2006) who similarly established that study
participants identified both a high level of inclusion needs and that they
perceived that various inclusion factors were needed and most of the factors
were unavailable for the inclusion of CWD in classrooms.
The ECEds in the present study viewed principal support, family
involvement of CWD, and positive attitudes of school personnel as factors that
are both necessary and available to them for the successful inclusion of CWD.
This might serve as foundation for getting the support and building the
professional development expertise of ECEds for meeting the needs of CWD.
These factors have in common the focus in creating the good atmosphere where
CWD are served as the respected members of classroom and provided the
support for optimal social and behavioural development. Further, when the
difference between the total mean scores of items of necessary factors (3.53) and
available factors (2.61) was compared, reduced class size, in service training of
the educators and collaborations with professionals were perceived as the highly
necessary and less available factors to the educators. Therefore, it is essential that
administrator should motivate the collaboration with educators and
professionals for the inclusion of CWD in inclusive ECE settings. Similar
findings were observed in Akalin, Demir, Sucuoğlu, Bakkaloğlu, and Iscen,
(2014) study where preschool teachers reported class size, in service training and
collaboration with professionals as important factors in the successful
implementation of inclusion in the preschool. Thus, it may also be implied that
the less availability of inclusion factors, reported in the present sample may be
linked to the point that inclusion is a new concept that is emerging in Botswana,
especially in ECE sector and more emphasis should be given to the availability
of inclusion factors by all the stakeholders in the ECE settings.
Conclusion
This study aimed to find out the factors/items that are necessary and available for
the successful inclusion of CWD in ECE settings of Botswana. The ECEds from the
inclusive ECE settings participated in this study. The study confirms that the
educators identified the necessary factors; but in reality, the availability of these
factors are scarce in the early childhood settings in Botswana. The ECEds were
concerned with the non-availability of in service training and collaboration with
the professional in implementing successful inclusion in the ECE settings. The
additional inclusion factors should be made available to the educators for the
implementation of inclusion in ECE settings. The key inclusion factors that are
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
16
most needed by the ECEds are professional development to increase their
knowledge and skills in teaching CWD in inclusive settings. Therefore, active
involvement of all stakeholders (educators, school administration & parents) and
positive interaction between the multi educational system especially at micro,
meso and macro system (the child with a disability, classroom & level of school
support) are important for the successful inclusion of CWD in ECE settings in
Botswana
The findings of this study have several implications. The present research
suggests that ECEds in Botswana perceived non-availability of a number of
factors necessary for the inclusion of CWDs. Hence, it is essential that
administrators should emphasise more on the provision of materials, resources,
support services and conducive learning environment for the CWDs in the
inclusive educational settings. The ECEds are very important stake holders, and
their training must be emphasised for inclusion CWDs in early childhood
settings in Botswana. Therefore, the MoESD and NGOs should take initiative in
organising workshops (pre-service and in-service) for ECEds that address the
knowledge and development of skills necessary to accommodate the needs of
CWD in inclusive ECE settings. The MoESD should devise strategies to
incorporate ECE into basic education so that more children especially CWD can
have access to ECE. Furthermore, there is need to monitor the policy
implementation and effectiveness of ECE programs for all children.
This research offers a basis for further investigation to provide successful
inclusive ECE services in Botswana. More qualitative researches on the inclusion
of CWDs are necessary to draw inferences regarding the factors for inclusion at
ECE settings in the Botswana.
Like the other studies, this research study also acknowledges some
limitations; including the point that sample of the study (ECEds) were selected
from the two regions of ECE settings in Botswana. In this study, only one
method of data collection, i.e. questionnaire was used. The other methods of
data collection such as interviews, focus group, case studies and observation can
also be used to obtain information from the school staff in the further studies to
obtain the holistic views of educators about the necessary and available factors
for the successful implementation of inclusion of CWD in early childhood
schools. In addition, findings from the survey data were only representative of
the population of teachers and teacher assistant, other key stakeholders such as
administrators and parents were not participated in the sample; therefore this
study represents the perspectives of the particular educators only. Admitting the
weaknesses, this study is unique because it examines the inclusive early
childhood schools in Botswana for the first time, an area that is often neglected
by the researchers.
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
17
References
Abosi, C. O. (2000). Trends and issues in special education in Botswana. The Journal of
Special Education, 34 (1), 48 – 53.
Akalin, S., Demir, S., Sucuoğlu, H., & Iscen, F. (2014). The needs of inclusive preschool
teachers about inclusive practices. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 39
– 60.
Anderson, K.J., & Minke, K.M. (2007). Parent involvement in education: Toward an
understanding of parents‟ decision making. The Journal of Educational Research,
100(5), 311 – 323.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers‟
attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the
ordinary school in one local educational authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191
– 211.
Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. A. (1998). Inclusion in the
context of competing values in early childhood education, Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13(1), 27–47.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Kingston, D. (2006). Index for Inclusion: Developing play, learning
and participation in early years and childcare. Manchester: Centre for Studies on
Inclusive Education
Brandon, D.P. (2006). Botswana‟s family and consumer science teachers‟ attitude
towards the inclusion of students with physical disabilities. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences Education, 24 (1), 37 – 49.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). The ecology of human development, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bruns, D. A., & Mogharreban, C. C. (2008). Working with young children with
disabilities: Perceptions, skills, and training needs of Head Start teachers.
National Head Start Association Dialog, 11(1), 54 – 66.
Carrington, S. 2007. Classroom relationships, pedagogy and practice in the inclusive
classroom. In Schools and diversity. 2nd ed., ed. M. Keefe and S. Carrington, 108–
27. Frenchs Forest: Pearson. Comber, B., and B. Kamler
Chhabra, S., Srivastava, R., & Srivastava, I. (2010). Inclusive education in Botswana: the
perceptions of school teachers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20 (4), 219 –
228.
Dagnew, A. (2013). Factors affecting the implementation of inclusive education in
primary schools of Bahir Dar Town administration. Educational Research Journal,
3(3), 59 – 67.
David, R. & Kuyini, A.B. (2012). Social inclusion: Teachers as facilitators in peer
acceptance of students with disabilities in regular classrooms in Tamil Nadu,
India. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 1 – 12.
Diamond, K.E., & Huang, H. (2005). Preschooler‟s idea about disabilities. Infant & Young
Children, 18, 37 – 46.
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet survey: the tailored design method (2 nd ed.) New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Guralnick, M. J. (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes
Hammond, H., & Ingalls. (2003). Teachers‟ attitudes toward inclusion: Survey results
from elementary school teachers in three southwest rural school districts. Rural
Special Education Quarterly, 22(2) 24 – 30.
Koegal, L, Fredeen, R.M., Lang, R & Koegal, R. (2011). Intervention of Children with
Autism Spectrum Disorder in Inclusive school settings. Cognitive and Behaviour
Practice
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
18
Korkmaz, I. (2011). Elementary teachers‟ perceptions about implementation of inclusive
education. US-China education Review, 8(2), 177 – 183
Kucuker, S., Acarlar, F., & Kapci, E. G. (2006). The development and psychometric
evaluation of a support scale for pre-school inclusion. Early Child Development
and Care, 176(6), 643 – 659. doi:10.1080/03004430500147524
Leatherman, J.M. (2007). I just see all children as children: teachers‟ perceptions about
inclusion. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 594 – 611.
Levy, S., Kim, A., & Olive, M.L. (2006). Interventions for young children with autism: A
synthesis of the literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
21(1), 55 – 62 .doi: 10.1177/10883576060210010701
Mangope, B., Kuyini, A.B., & Major, T. (2012). Assessment of learners with special needs
for inclusive education in Botswana: Issues and Challenges for school.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Education 5(2), 138 – 150
McConkey, R., & Bhlirgri, S. (2003). Children with autism attending preschool facilities:
The experience and perceptions of staff. Early Child Development and Care, 173(4),
445 – 452.
Mcleskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Inclusion and school change: Teacher perceptions
regarding curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 25, 41 – 54.
Mittler, P. (1995). Education for all or for some? International principles and practice.
Australasian Journal of Special Education, 19(2), 5 – 15.
Mukhopadhyay, S. (2014). Botswana primary school teachers‟ perception of inclusion of
learners with special education needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 14(1) 33 – 42.
Mukhopadhyay, S. (2013). Voices of experience: Botswana primary schools teachers on
inclusive education. European Journal of Educational Studies 5(1). 73 – 85
Mulvihill, B. A., Shearer, D., & Van Horn, M. L. (2002). Training, experience, and child
care providers‟ perceptions of inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 197
– 215. doi:10.1023/B:LERI.0000037196.62475.32
National Association for the education of Young Children (NAEYC). (1993).Position on
inclusion.
Downloaded
October
9,
2014
from
http://
www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statement/psinc.
Odom, S. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 20 (1), 20-27
Odom, S.L., Buysee, V., & Soukakou, E. (2011). Inclusion for young children with
disabilities: A quarter centuary of research perspectives, Journal of Early
Intervention, 33 (4), 344 – 356
Odom, S. L., & Diamond, K.E. (1998). Inclusion of young children with special needs in
early childhood education: The research base. Early Childhood Research quarterly,
13(1), 3 – 25
Odom, S.L., Zercher, C., Li, S., Marquart, J., & Sandall, S. (2006). Social acceptance and
social rejection of young children with disabilities in inclusive classes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98. 807 – 823
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
19
Paterson, D. (2007). Teachers‟ in-flight thinking in inclusive classrooms. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 427 – 435.
Peck, C.A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and teacher perceptions of
outcomes for typically developing children enrolled in integrated early childhood
programs: A state-wide survey. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 53 – 63.
Proctor, R., & Niemeyer, J. A. (2001). Pre-service teacher beliefs about inclusion:
Implications for early intervention educators. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(1), 55
– 66.
Republic of Botswana (1994) Revised National Policy on Education. Gaborone: Government
Printers.
Republic of Botswana (2001). Early Childhood Care and Education Policy. Government
Printers
Republic of Botswana (2011). Inclusive Education Policy, Government Printers
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs
students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 9(3), 188 – 198.
Sadler, J. (2005). Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of the mainstream teachers of children
with a preschool diagnosis of speech/language impairment. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 147 – 163.
Salend, S. J. (2006). Explaining your inclusion program to families. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 38(4), 6 – 11.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school
attributes as predictors of teachers‟ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special
Education, 31, 480 – 497.
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs.
World Conference on Special Needs Education, Access and Quality. Retrieved
from http://www.ecdgroup.com/download/gn1ssfai.pdf
UNESCO (2000). Education for all: Meeting collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO
Vaughan, S., Reiss, M., Rothlein, L. & Hughes, N.T. (1999). Kindergarten teachers‟
perceptions of instructing students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,
20(3). 184 – 191.
Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S. (2003). Making inclusive education work. Educational
Leadership, 61(2), 19 – 23.
Yuen, M., & Westwood, P. (2001). Integrating students with special needs in Hong
Kong secondary schools: Teachers‟ attitudes and their possible relationship to
guidance training. International Journal of Special Education, 16(2), 69 – 84.
©2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.